Why did Hitler have to be stopped?
Why do you ask a rhetorical question?
Nazi policy was to be friendly towards the British as they were supposed to be natural allies.
Why then did HMG not form an alliance with Nazi Germany if that was the case, rather than with Poland?
How nice of you to call actions in which several hundred British servicemen lost their lives "irrelevances".
I apologise unreservedly to any British who were offended by my words - I certainly didn't intend my words to convey that sentiment or to cause offence and I retract that. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Brits and Cth soldiers who fought in WW2 and you're aware of that.
Several hundred of those brave Poles even managed to arrive in Britain before Britain had even declared war!
Peking! Peking! Peking! A joint operation, mutually consented to, whereby some ships of the Polish navy went to Britain and served under HMG with gallantry. How Polish is that!
And of course you don't give any examples of what more could have been done in 1939.
The burden of proof is not on me to give examples - how can I speculate on the state of mind of a government concerning what that government subjectively believed could be achieved assistance-wise but having regard to what was in their power to do? I can't prove a negative, can I?
It's on you to convince that HMG did all in its power to assist. Did they? What more could they have done that they didn't do?
Could you please quote the part of that treaty in which Britain commits to protect Poland's borders?
Could you please quote the part of the treaty which provides particulars as to when/how etc. article 5 is to be suspended? You can't can you. That's because there is no such provision, whether express, implied or collateral to the treaty, and no matter how hard you try to deflect it doesn't change the fact that HMG committed a prima facie breach of article 5 by not telling Poland about what happened at Teheran in respect of the relevant matters raised there concerning the future of Poland.
Could you remind me of the nationality of the supreme allied commander? The same man who favoured the broad front strategy.
I assume then that you do not disagree with the fact that Anders' proposal was not consented to. Good.
I'll also assume that any further rhetorical questions and/or questions posed as responses simply mean you agree to my contention in default of a genuine response, and that no further response from me is required.
You would be if you'd been disqualified from driving for causing accidents that injured C, L and U.
Really? Are you saying that a claimant can be wholly precluded from seeking remedies under a cause of action in say a motor vehicle accident (negligence) matter solely on the basis that at the time the cause of action arose the claimant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence? Or are you saying that a claimant can seek remedies at first instance but will then have such application dismissed on the basis of being disqulaified? Can you provide links to the applicable legislation and case law supporting your proposition? Do you get a feeling of deja vu here?
And Poland really should have been disqualified from driving.
And therein lies the answer. 'Poland' was not disqualified, no matter how much you wish it was. My proposition stands.